NEW DELHI: Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wedneday suffered a setback when the Delhi High Court dismissed his plea seeking a stay on trial court proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, saying there was no “illegality” in continuing it simultaneously with a civil defamation suit.
The High Court said there was “no prejudice” on account of a pending civil suit and there was no “double jeopardy” and as such Kejriwal’s plea was “deviod of merit”. It said the criminal and civil defamation cases were “different in nature”.
“There is no legal impediment to invoke the civil proceedings for defamation as well as initiating the criminal proceedings for defamation simultaneously and continuation of the same,” Justice Teji said.
In December last year, Jaitley filed both civil and criminal defamation cases against Kejriwal and the five other AAP leaders for allegedly defaming him and sought Rs 10 crores in damages and their prosecution for offences.
Jaitley has alleged that they had made defamatory statements against him and his family that they had made pecuniary gains by associating themselves with 21st Century Media Pvt Ltd, a sports management firm. AAP leaders also alleged financial bunglings in the Delhi & District Cricket Association which the miister had headed.
“Wasn’t Jaitley the head of DDCA during 1999-2013 when these irregularities happened? When laptops were hired at Rs 16,000 per day when the cost of renovation of the Feroz Shah Kotla stadium escalated to Rs 144 crore from Rs 24 crore,” Kejriwal had said.
“The companies that were given contracts in that period had same directors and same addresses. Does this not indicate towards corruption? How did this happen then? Who did it?,” he had added.
The court also said nothing had been brought before it to the effect that continuation of criminal proceedings before the trial court was an “abuse of the process of law”. The court observed that though Jaitley had initiated two proceedings, “the fact remains that same are distinct and separate cases”.
The court also did not agree with the contention that any finding recorded by the high court was binding on the court subordinate to it.
“When two separate statutes provide for separate jurisdiction to try civil and criminal cases in two different courts, the same cannot be said to be binding upon each other or the court subordinate to it,” it said.